June 15, 2012

Chronicle

by Franz Patrick

Chronicle (2012)
★★★★ / ★★★★

With a terminally ill mother (Bo Petersen) and a drunkard of a father (Michael Kelly), Andrew (Dane DeHaan) is far from a happy teenager. To everyone’s surprise, Andrew decides to buy a video camera and begins to film the ordinariness of his life, from the bullying he endures in and out of school to the moments when he feels open enough to reveal his secret insecurities to his cousin, Matt (Alex Russell). From looking at his bright eyes, weighed down by darkening eye bags, we can surmise that maybe he decides to record so that he can later watch the footages and find some sort of reassurance that his life is worth living. While at a rave, Matt and Steve (Michael B. Jordan), a popular jock, invite Andrew to an underground cave. Inside houses a structure that emanates strange lights and sounds. The next couple of weeks, they begin to exhibit powers starting with psychokinesis.

“Chronicle,” based on the screenplay by Max Landis, takes advantage of the found footage sub-genre, so often used as a disappointing gimmick, by telling a rather surprisingly moving story of a young man who has grown so tired of being pushed around. What if one day that person gets enough power to fight back?

One of the reasons why I enjoyed the picture so much is, especially during its early scenes, its consistency in quickly turning events from somewhat harmless fun to life-threatening. For instance, eventually discovering that they are able to will their body to levitate, the trio decide to play catch amongst the clouds. Suddenly, the peaceful game turns deadly when a plane in full speed reveals itself from an awkward angle. The initially relatively stable camera, controlled by Andrew’s mind as it hovers over and around them, goes through appropriate convulsions once panic sets in.

As much as it is very amusing to watch the guys discover and experiment their newfangled abilities, the more interesting moments involve Andrew talking about how he feels so lonely sometimes. I must admit that I began to get a bit teary-eyed because I found myself able to relate to the essence of his loneliness. As hard as he tries to fit in during social gatherings, he just has a sensitive personality which often leads to disappointments and other emotional disasters. It is obvious that he is grateful of the powers because the experiences bind them as soldiers do when in battle.

Prior to their trip to the cave, Andrew is not really close to Matt even though they are cousins. And Andrew certainly is not a part of Steve’s social circle. Steve’s friends–including himself, at least initially–mostly see Andrew as that loser who wears the same grey sweater every day to school. At one point, when Andrew confesses to Steve and Matt that he has just had the best day of his life, it does not feel like some cheap cliché. The line holds meaning to us because the camera captures the essence of their bond and it shows us the value of Andrew deciding to come out of his shell a little. I think that emotional honesty moved me so much because when he does terrible things later on, I was still able to root for and empathize with him.

Despite its very short running time, Andrew’s character arc feels complete and the denouements feel just right. Directed by Josh Trank, “Chronicle” could have used less scenes of Casey (Ashley Hinshaw) the blogger, Matt’s romantic interest, in order to make the final product even leaner. The romance brings nothing special to the film and I felt the momentum slow down each time they flirt in such a boring way. They are so cutesy around one another, I was just thankful there is not a “No, you hang up first!” scene. Still, the pathos of Andrew’s suffering is so strong, brilliantly played by DeHaan, everything else feels secondary.

Subscribe

HAL 9000

367,758 Readers

Great Directors

Steven Spielberg
People have forgotten how to tell a story. Stories don't have a middle or an end any more. They usually have a beginning that never stops beginning.

I'm as guilty as anyone, because I helped to herald the digital era with "Jurassic Park." But the danger is that it can be abused to the point where nothing is eye-popping any more. The difference between making "Jaws" thirty-one years ago and "War of the Worlds" is that today, anything I can imagine, I can realize on film. Then, when my mechanical shark was being repaired and I had to shoot something, I had to make the water scary. I relied on the audience's imagination, aided by where I put the camera. Today, it would be a digital shark. It would cost a hell of a lot more, but never break down. As a result, I probably would have used it four times as much, which would have made the film four times less scary. "Jaws" is scary because of what you don't see, not because of what you do. We need to bring the audience back into partnership with storytelling.

I've discovered I've got this preoccupation with ordinary people pursued by large forces.

Stanley Kubrick
If it can be written, or thought, it can be filmed.

I've always been interested in ESP and the paranormal. In addition to the scientific experiments which have been conducted suggesting that we are just short of conclusive proof of its existence, I'm sure we've all had the experience of opening a book at the exact page we're looking for, or thinking of a friend a moment before they ring on the telephone. But "The Shining" didn't originate from any particular desire to do a film about this. I thought it was one of the most ingenious and exciting stories of the genre I had read. It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the psychological: "Jack must be imagining these things because he's crazy." This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it almost without noticing. The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really matters.

I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want.

Werner Herzog
What would an ocean be without a monster lurking in the dark? It would be like sleep without dreams.

It is not only my dreams, my belief is that all these dreams are yours as well. The only distinction between me and you is that I can articulate them. And that is what poetry or painting or literature or filmmaking is all about… and it is my duty because this might be the inner chronicle of what we are. We have to articulate ourselves, otherwise we would be cows in the field.

Your film is like your children. You might want a child with certain qualities, but you are never going to get the exact specification right. The film has a privilege to live its own life and develop its own character. To suppress this is dangerous. It is an approach that works the other way too: sometimes the footage has amazing qualities that you did not expect.

Alfred Hitchcock
Four people are sitting around a table talking about baseball or whatever you like. Five minutes of it. Very dull. Suddenly, a bomb goes off. Blows the people to smithereens. What does the audience have? Ten seconds of shock. Now, take the same scene and tell the audience there is a bomb under that table and will go off in five minutes. The whole emotion of the audience is totally different because you've given them that information. In five minutes time that bomb will go off. Now the conversation about baseball becomes very vital. Because they're saying to you, "Don't be ridiculous. Stop talking about baseball. There's a bomb under there." You've got the audience working.

There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it.

Ken Loach
Why do they say I hate my country? And what does that even mean? Am I supposed to hate my town, am I supposed to hate all English people, or my government? And if I do hate my government, does that mean I hate my country? It's a democratic duty to criticize the government.

A movie isn't a political movement, a party, or even an article. It's just a film. At best it can add its voice to public outrage.

Pedro Almodóvar
Yes, women are stronger than us. They face more directly the problems that confront them, and for that reason they are much more spectacular to talk about. I don't know why I am more interested in women, because I don't go to any psychiatrists, and I don't want to know why.

I think decor says a lot about someone's social position, their taste, their sensibility, their work, and also about the aesthetic way I have chosen to tell their story.

My school and the cinema were only a few buildings apart on the same street. The bad education I received at school was rectified when I went to the cinema. My religion became the cinema. Of course one could create one's own belief system, and anything that helps or supports you in life can be seen as covering the function of religion. In that sense you could consider cinema my religion, because it is one of my major stimuli that I have for living. Cinema has that aspect of devotion to saints and idolatry as well. In that sense it is entirely religious.

Terrence Malick
Experience it like a walk in the countryside. You’ll probably be bored or have other things in mind, but perhaps you will be struck, suddenly, by a feeling, by an act, by a unique portrait of nature.

Louis Malle
You must find the note, the correct key, for your story. If you find it, everything will work. If you do not, everything will stick out like elbows.

I think predictability has become the rule and I'm completely the opposite--I like spectators to be disturbed.

Martin Scorsese
When I did "The Age of Innocence," the critics said, "Is it wrong to expect a little more heat from Scorsese?" I thought "The Age of Innocence" was pretty hot. So I said, "Alright, I'll do 'Casino,'" and they said, "Well, gee, it's the same as 'Goodfellas.'" You can't win. Yes, "Casino" has the style of "GoodFellas," but it has more to do with America--and even Hollywood: the idea of never being satisfied.

"L'avventura" gave me one of the most profound shocks I've ever had at the movies, greater even than "Breathless" or "Hiroshima, mon amour." Or "La dolce vita". At the time there were two camps, the people who liked the Fellini film and the ones who liked "L'avventura." I knew I was firmly on Antonioni's side of the line, but if you'd asked me at the time, I'm not sure I would have been able to explain why. I loved Fellini's pictures and I admired "La dolce vita," but I was challenged by "L'avventura." Fellini's film moved me and entertained me, but Antonioni's film changed my perception of cinema, and the world around me, and made both seem limitless. I was mesmerized by "L'avventura" and by Antonioni's subsequent films, and it was the fact that they were unresolved in any conventional sense that kept drawing me back. They posed mysteries--or, rather, the mystery of who we are, what we are, to each other, to ourselves, to time. You could say that Antonioni was looking directly at the mysteries of the soul.

The cinema began with a passionate, physical relationship between celluloid and the artists and craftsmen and technicians who handled it, manipulated it, and came to know it the way a lover comes to know every inch of the body of the beloved. No matter where the cinema goes, we cannot afford to lose sight of its beginnings.

Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne
In "L'enfant," we have a main character, Bruno, a man who cannot be a father, who is never able to be a father, and it feels like at the end of the movie he at last became a father. Well, I’m not sure things will be OK afterwards. But it seems like when they’re in the prison, where people can speak with their families, I think he says, “How’s Jimmy, how is he doing?” Well, he never said the name of the kid before. It means that he has changed. Because of the kid that he has saved from the water, Steve, he became someone else. It takes time. So we felt that it was the right moment to end the movie. Our movies are like portraits.

We haven’t found any place or room for music in our movies. Maybe because we are not able to find the right music, I don’t know. And when we’re shooting, I think that’s where things happen actually. When we’re building our plans, et cetera, the rhythm of that construction is partly based on the sounds, not only the dialogues, but touching the objects. And rhythm is based on the sounds that we can hear on the set, the noise of the bodies moving, the breathing of the characters, that’s our music. We just don’t see the need for music. When we’re shooting we just don’t think about it.

I think one of the big wishes of the human kind is to transform things, to work on things to construct, to destroy, to sometimes construct again. And not only to look at the world, let’s say, passively. I think that’s the aim of humankind, being a man, a woman, is to change things. And cinema is about showing things that are changing.

Quentin Tarantino
If you're a film fan, collecting video is sort of like marijuana. Laser discs, they're definitely cocaine. Film prints are heroin, all right? You're shooting smack when you start collecting film prints. So, I kinda got into it in a big way, and I've got a pretty nice collection I'm real proud of.

The exploitation films were made in such an artless way with these big wide shots of Sunset Boulevard or of Arcadia or downtown L.A. or wherever. In mainstream films, especially in the 1980s, the Los Angeles you saw wasn't the real one; it was a character with this backlot sort of atmosphere. They tried to luxuriate it. In exploitation films, you see what the place really looked like, you see the bars and mom-and-pop restaurants.

I've had people write that I've seen too many movies. In what other art form would being an expert be considered a negative? If I were a poet, would I be criticized for knowing too much about Sappho? Or Aristotle?